What is going on in the great stake of Texas, they have liberal KKK meetings, you keep mentioning Obamas being black, you almost sound like you got a good case of black a phobia, sort of like homo phobia. 

What do you do sing Kimbia before you burn a cross on someones lawn? You seem to have a thing for Obama and how he looks, me thinks you may not be healthy.

We can bicker all we want, it is sort of knee jerk reactions, but I believe we are screwed no matter who gets into office.  History has proven this is so.

So vote your choice, we do not count anyway.

These comments are nice, but I really am expecting Obama to solidify his economic plan amongst voters. This will ensure his victory in both Texas and Ohio, and thus provide him with the Democratic nomination.

It becomes too easy to lean on these silly tit-for-tat phrases the candidates use. I think being part of the Obama movement obliges some self-discipline and understanding to the significance of some statements. He has better attributes to pronounce.

I just saw Obama on TV saying this at a rally:

My opponent says speeches don’t put food on the table. Oh yeah? Well NAFTA didn’t put food on the table either.

Wham! Spank! Go Obama!

Lib:

ROFLMAO!  You go, girl!  I would add “war funding-supporting, Patriot Act-supporting, anti-student loan, speech-stealing INCREDIBLY lucky.”

Why “lucky?”  Because one thing the Obama supporters forget is the way he became a U.S. Senator to begin with.

Obama first ran against Brian Hull in the primary.  Hull had a substantial lead coming into the election, but lost much of that lead when he became embroiled in a domestic abuse charge.  Yet despite this, and despite last-minute endorsements from over half a dozen heavy hitters, Obama only won 52% of the vote.

In the general election, he was up against republican Jack Ryan.  However, Ryan dropped out of the race (fairly late) when he became embroiled in a very public and tawdry custody battle with his wife, actress Jeri Ryan.  This left Obama with no opponent at all.  Alan Keyes took up the challenge late in the campaign (since the GOP needed SOMEONE to fill the slot), but given Keyes well-established bizarre personality, Obama won 70% of the vote.

Thus, Obama became a U.S. Senator via a series of unforeseen - and flat-out “lucky” - circumstances: had Hull not become embroiled in the domestic abuse situation, we would not even know who Barack Obama is, since Hull was highly respected and had solid centrist-progressive positions on many issues of importance to Illinois voters.

Peace.

OBAMA is a shyster, ugly, big eared, stinky feet, blue mouthed from kool aid, ignorant, piece of doo doo.  Now that sounds just like you Hillary bashers.
How do you like it ?????  Makes as much since as you do. One thing about OBAMA he hasn’t been around long enough to be tested.  You just LOVE his plagiarized speeches, not smart enough to even think up his own stuff as he claims he does.  WHAT a phony.

Lib in texas sounds like a twist of words.
Now that is vague!

If OBAMA is elected we will go in a different direction alright and it will be one you won’t like.  Won’t give you specifics as you don’t like consumers reports.  I can be as vague as you OBAMA supporters.

Thank you Maani for doing you reseach alto I don’t think the whack o’s will read it.  Cyrena, keeps babbling that she wants others to give her reasons for voting for Hillary when in fact she has no reason for voting for BARACK.  I know she hasn’t done her homework on BARACK cause she thought he was raised in Kansas and had a Kansas accent. HA Doesn’t take a lot of looking to find out that isn’t true.
mid city mike is just nuts. Aerus must be paid by the OBAMA group to spread the lies that he posts.
THEY either like OBAMA cause he’s black or they like his preachy orator because he has no substance, but THEY like him, give these long long speechy posts that say nothing because they know nothing. It just might take a little work to find something out that could just be TRUE!!!

Interesting Aegrus comments on Hillary, they may or may not be true, but that is how I perceive her.

Look Maani, I know Obama is not innocent, but the degrees of guilt lay on the Hillary side.  She has so much baggage and I am not talking about the ones under her eyes. (Is that sexist)

Obama talks and addresses the people, Hillary talks down to them like they are kids.

Doing homework is what we all are doing, just you want to approach it like consumers reports with a bias for your candidate. 

My feeling is Hillary will be more of the same, I am willing to vote for Obama to see if we can go in a different direction.  If he cuts back on Lobbies more power to the people. At least he is talking about it.

Shadyness of the Clinton s, the persona they portray troubles me even to discomfort.  I am tired of them.

Additionally, Cyrena, Senators aren’t often voted into office specifically because their experience is seen as irrelevant when compared to a governor or white house official. It’s quite interesting we only have Senators to choose from this election. Major differences between the three? One likes war, one really likes war, and one only likes war a little. };>

Mike,thanks for pointing this out, and giving lib from Texas some FREE education.

“No your wrong. She went to Yale with Bill stupid.”

I love it.

I was about to do the same, even though I pretty much avoid bothering responding to this poster, since s/he has proved his/her stupidity before.

Harvard indeed. That’s where OBAMA got HIS law degree.

Poor lib in Texas. It’s sad. I guess this would make us wonder how lib managed to get to Obama High School grade transcripts. But then, I didn’t need convincing to know that lib was full of well….there’s a lot of manure in Texas.

Didn’t GWB spend some time there? Yep, I think he did.

Which just proves how smart Hillary is. She and her former law firm, (Rose something) represented GW Bush in one of his failed Oil Deals, when he ‘owned’ Harken Oil, and ripped off so many investors. Yep, Hillary saved him that time.

So, she’s pretty smart. Just didn’t get her law degree from Harvard.

That was Obama lib. Can you remember that? If so, the next thing to commit to memory is that lawyers practice various areas of the law. Hillary was a CORPORATE lawyer, (she didn’t practice that long) representing both corporations and individuals, (like George W Bush in his Harken Oil scam).

Obama is a Civil Rights attorney, which encompasses more and more the Human Rights component of International Law. Civil Rights law also falls on the ‘public interest law” side of the column. It’s the difference between BIG PAY, (like corporate lawyers make) and little pay, as in pro bono work.

So, lawyer/attorney Hillary Clinton = BIG MONEY.

lawyer/attorney Barack Obama = little money.

That’s the way it goes, but it has less to do with ‘smarts’ than it does with morality, ethics, greed, etc, etc.
Obama was also a Professor of Law at DePaul University in Chicago.

Could you just tell us then, WHY you ARE supporting her?

I’ve only been trying to get that from your for a couple of months now Maani.

So, did I miss it?

In short, can you give us a general synopsis of why YOU support Hillary Clinton for POTUS, and the only rule is that you can’t use a comparative basis in your argument. It has to be a STAND ALONE and independent rational FOR the good things about Hillary, (and what she’s accomplished so far) that either YOU or others can use as objective considerations for supporting her.

So, comparisons to Obama are not considered reasons, at least for this purpose. And, apologies for what others might view as screw ups aren’t good either.

Just tell us why YOU support her, and why YOU think that she would be a good choice, and try to think of some GOOD, POSITIVE or EFFICIENT actions that she has undertaken. Don’t worry about whether or not OTHERS view these as good, positive, or efficient. Just tell us what the POSITIVE stuff is, that Hillary Clinton brings to the things that you consider to be reasons to elect her.

No need to hurry. It’s only my 93rd request, and admittedly, I seem to be the only one who’s much interested.

Leefeller:

You know, you would be much more convincing if you actually supported your statements.

Re the FDA and business influence in government agencies, this predates Clinton.  Yes, he probably added to it, as all president have done.  But to blame HIM for this is absurd in the extreme; he didn’t invent it, and he probably did less of it than some former presidents.

Re lobbies, you have it wrong on both ends.  First, Obama is not “new” to the feeding trough.  Obama took lobby and PAC money for each of his three senate runs, two state, one federal.  In fact, when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006, the year that Hillary ran for re-election, he took MORE lobby and PAC money than she did!  But you wouldn’t know this since you don’t make any attempt to find out whether the accusations you make are true or not.

As well, Hillary has taken just over $800,000 in lobby money this year, and a little more than $30,000 in PAC money (Obama took about $3,000 in PAC money).  And while one can certainly shake a finger here, it needs to be seen in perspective: Hillary raised over $100 MILLION; so $800,000 and $30,000 are little more than chump change.

As for business and industry money, I have outlined in details their comparative campaign donations, which are almost equal: Obama took more from some industries than Hillary did (e.g., energy), and she took more money from some industries than he did (e.g., lawyers).  But in most cases (particularly the banking and investment business) their campaign contributions are virtually equal.

It does not surprise me that you and other Hillary bashers here don’t “do the homework.”  Because you know that if you did, you might just find that you are wrong, and that Obama is not the innocent you make him out to be.

Peace.

Aegrus,

I say AMEN to this excellent post! The whole piece is great, but this really does put the truth to the light…

•  “Hillary DOES have a lot of good points, but her campaigners are just so self-righteous and arrogant about her victory they wouldn’t dream of actually debating on real issues or talking about her quality as a candidate. Supporters of Clinton get too much enjoyment on trying to close the door on the Obama presidency via cheap tricks, poll guarding and misrepresentation. Their lives consist of defending their queen from dumbass opinionists on MSNBC and browbeating Air America and Ed Schultz listeners for having their own thoughts. Hegemony is the spear of Clinton.”

Needless-to-say, Hillary has done herself in, more than anyone has ‘done to her’. But, her supporters haven’t helped her. I have questioned them, (more times than I can count) on exactly WHY we should support her, and WHAT it is that she’s got to bring to the job.

I have YET to get a reasonable, objective, or non-ideological response with, “just the facts’. I haven’t even been able to get a response from these supporters on what they PRESUME to be the facts, or the list of her strengths/accomplishments.  As a result, despite all of this spilled ink, I’ve had to actually search on my own, to find those ‘good points’ that Hillary actually does have, that might give me or any other voter a reason to consider her.

I think Hillary is good as a bureaucrat, and let’s face it, we need a bureaucracy. As much as I don’t like the bloated bureaucracy, and the insanity of what it has become, a society cannot operate without a bureaucracy; specifically one that calls itself a democracy. I wish we had more lawmakers that were willing to KNOW the law, and work within the structure of THE RULE OF LAW, which is what ‘democracy’ is founded upon.  I honestly believe that Hillary can be a highly skilled lawmaker and bureaucrat, even though her votes on the issues that have MOST affected the well being of our democracy have been highly questionable.

Still, that is isolated to the BIG issues, and it’s not only her initial vote to authorize what is an ILLEGAL war of aggression, as well as an immoral war of aggression, but just as much her continued support for that initial vote. That casts serious doubts on whether or not she actually KNOWS the law, (that required UN approval before launching such an atrocity). And, if we can assume that she DID know the law, and has chosen to continue to support the illegality of it, then that speaks to yet another serious lapse in the type of judgment required to be not just a legislator, when one’s judgment is considered via consensus, but for sure as the chief decision maker.

Meantime, she has proved to be smart in many areas, and yet none of her supporters ever sites those things. Rather, they choose to present her ‘credentials’ in quantitative terms, and ONLY in contrast to Obama’s, rather than in stand-alone terms that speak to her abilities from both quantitative as well as qualitative measures.

Experience is their best shot, since ‘experience’ IS important. But then, when we start breaking down exactly what her experience IS, (even by cheating and measuring it against Obama, rather than on a stand-alone basis) we don’t see all that much. We see that she’s been a Senator for 6 years. So, that would require examining her work in the job. But, nobody ever really gets to telling us about any of the good things she’s done as a Senator, and the rest simply doesn’t count for much. All of the First Lady stuff goes under the ‘extra curricular activities’ category. Yeah, it’s worth consideration, but it’s not the same ‘experience’ as her Senatorial duties.

And then of course when we consider all of it, the bad ‘experience’ is gonna have to come to light as well. Her supporters end up as apologists for that part, instead of as supporters for what she can actually DO!

Hillary has some good points and they all are not necessarily on her head.  My main reason for not voting for Hillary is because I am an organic farmer and the FDA is so screwed up, with cronies from the chemical companies like Dupont and Monsanto, when Bill-o was president, he stuck the fox in the chicken coop like clock work,  so now we have chemical company cronies running the FDA, not much different than Bush.  It is much more complex than this but you get the gist.  Lobbies are another sore subject with me,  we the people have little input at D.C. because the Lobbies wine and dine the clowns we vote for.  Obama being new to the feed trough, he sees this as a bad thing, I agree. 

Maani, what does Hillary say about Lobbies? Since she used to work for Wall Mart, I have a feeling she likes the lobbies, including the likes of Monsanto. 

Some substance would be nice from Hillary, Hillary supporters keep attacking Obama for his ability to bring people together and fire them up.  Seems Hillary fires up her pocket book. 

Now I must say, I feel sorry for Hillary,  she may be going down, and does not see the hand writing on the wall.  Obama is so much more positive. Now taking my chances and paying my dues, I pick Obama over Hillary without flinching.

Expect to see much vitriol via Libby and supporters of the same ilk in the coming weeks. Hillary Clinton’s campaign managers have again decided to take the low road and are currently employing extremely aggressive tactics trying to cow Obama’s supporters into the Clinton penn (Mark Penn? Good Pun? Naaah).

This is a sign of things to come. Keep being objective because this is the last effort Hillary can make, and it will fail to give her any traction. These hyper-aggressive scare tactics only serve to destroy her appeal. Democracy will prevail.

This is only the beginning of a rebirth of Americanism.

OBAMA pimps his wife I just saw her being pimped.
Your rant makes no sense, your are doing the hollering, whining, pathetic !! You have posted nothing but pure hate!!! That is exactly how the election will be handled with hate.  Its going to take more than a plagiarizing, big eared, arrogant bast*** to pull the country together. There how did you like that rant ????

tony w , so you are another Obama fan who likes rhetoric and shucking and jiving!!!

Felicity, It was the teachers union that objected, Clinton’s had nothing to do with it.  But you Hillary
haters pick out parts you like.

Ken in Barbados, for your info Hillary also has a law degree from Harvard.  She is far more intelligent than BARACK OBAMA.  He was an average student in high school. Hillary was an honor student then.

aegrus, SO you are one of those non thinking people who like rhetoric.  Your talking points are non existent.

Libby, you support every argument made in my post. Thanks for your support. It’s people like you who make the Barack Obama campaign so strong! Love ya!

aegrus, Your whole post is a jumble of UNTRUTHS. I am not going to debate it point by point or I’d be doing it all day.  Do you just make this up or are you given this misstatements by someone else.

stop with the vote to start war - you have to be a republican for 2 reasons.  1. they have a one track mind.  2. can’t find anything reasonable to say JUST LIE.

You’re allegiance to Hillary Clinton is so cute. All these talking points, with their lack of substance, just make me smile at her dying relevance.

Leefeller, keep in mind Hillary Supporters are not Hillary Clinton. The people supporting Clinton’s campaign get all their news from ‘Hill Hub’ (what a name!). These constituents also continually spout all the talking points given out in official e-mails (Like the ‘Obama scared to debate’ bullshit) and are generally robots or frightened non-activists with little credibility. No one takes these spinbots seriously anymore.

Hillary DOES have a lot of good points, but her campaigners are just so self-righteous and arrogant about her victory they wouldn’t dream of actually debating on real issues or talking about her quality as a candidate. Supporters of Clinton get too much enjoyment on trying to close the door on the Obama presidency via cheap tricks, poll guarding and misrepresentation. Their lives consist of defending their queen from dumbass opinionists on MSNBC and browbeating Air America and Ed Schultz listeners for having their own thoughts. Hegemony is the spear of Clinton.

All the Clintonisas, Clintonites and Clinton Campaign Fiends need to face the facts about Hillary’s campaign. She has not run on her merits. Her advertisements are largely either inaccurate or bizarre. She still can’t shed the inauthentic aura around her when she speaks. She’s adopted every other candidate’s campaign slogan and causes. She’s defended PACs and lobbyists. She continues to be ultra-divisive. Her claims to experience are skeptical at best. She came into the candidacy thinking her nomination was inevitable, and has flopped around since Super Tuesday because she lost and has kept losing.

Learn now, Clintonites, HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT GOING TO WIN! Join the Barack Campaign. Both candidates are Democrats. You keep whining about how they are the same on all the issues, so why don’t you come over to our winning side instead of begging us to come to your losing side? None of you have anything to say which contributes to discussion, you just complain and blindly defend Hillary in spite of all the evidence that her campaign is a fluke, flopping, failing folly, which has not provided any real hope or real action in eight years. Get with the times, Clintonites.

Leefeller:

“Vote Hillary, she has experience and is entitled to become president, because she is a woman and you say so.”

I don’t ever remember saying that I am voting for Hillary because she is “entitled” to be president or because she is a woman, nor do I ever remember suggesting that anyone else vote for her for those reasons.

Was that short enough?  LOl.

Peace.

Of course this is going to be short.  Vote Hillary, she has experience and is entitled to become president, because she is a woman and you say so.  Go Mani.

Now, if I wanted to slam Hillary this would be much longer than Mani’s diatribe on Obama.

Peace o pie

Ken said: “Obama, within all of his lofty speeches and ideals, teaches us one very important thing: that at least with a Harvard degree, a sense of hope and the understanding of a constitutional scholar he certainly understands America fundamentally - its history, where its roots are.”

No, what all his lofty speeches teaches us is that people are more interested in lofty speeches than in substance, as noted by Yossarian’s comment below.

i,Q said, “Obama succeeds most by continuing to be the Obama he was ‘on day one.’”

Really?  On “day one” he was virulently opposed to the war.  When he got to the Senate, he voted to fund that war continuously.  On “day one,” he was strongly pro-civil liberties.  When he got to the Senate, he voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act, twice.  On “day one,” he was strongly for helping college students.  When he got to the Senate, he voted against a bill that would have extended college loans and student subsidies (which is incredibly ironic, since much of his support is from college kids…).  Etc.

Sheila said, “Clinton is in deep shit because of her voting record in the senate.  It is exactly the same as centegenarian, addled, right wingnut John McCain.”

You obviously know zero about their voting records, which are not similar at all.  Whereas the voting records of Hillary and Obama were the same 94% of the time, on virtually every conceivable issue - the closest of any two senators in Congress.

Cyrena said, “Positions for…candidates [and] their policies and PLANS for implementing those plans, are the guts of what make the bureaucratic machine operate, and we all depend on the semi-efficiency of that…And, Hillary IS strong on those details…The thing is, the mood of the American public these days is focused LESS on ‘how’ the changes will be accomplished…and more concerned with the larger picture..what is it gonna look like, and how will it work when the renovation is complete. Obama apparently picked up on this distinction…Obama said that when he was first campaigning…a common complaint from the people was they he was too ‘professoritorial’, providing far more ‘detail’ than they really cared about. So, he has obviously made adjustments along the way…Hillary…provides these details, and get’s stuck on things that she probably doesn’t get across to the public the way she might actually intend, or maybe she misreads the overall public mentality.”

The above is answered perfectly by Yossarian:

“Senator Clinton also has made the same mistake the quickly dismissed marginal candidates made. She released some detailed solutions to political problems. Doing so forces the voters to think. We don’t like that.”

And there we have it.  Obama is caught on to the fact that people don’t want to think; they want to be inspired by rhetoric and placated by palliatives.  As Yossarian implies, candidates like Kucinich, who talked “detailed solutions” and “policy” were quickly sidelined and/or dismissed.  Yet many people here were impressed - even proud - that Kucinich stuck to his guns and discussed details.  Yet when Hillary does the same thing, people accuse her of “misreading the overall public mentality” - which is, as Yossarian notes, that the public “doesn’t want to think” and, as Cyrena notes, that the public “doesn’t really care about details.”

If that is what Obama’s “adjustments” were about - pandering to people’s unwillingness to THINK, but rather to be “inspired” by rhetoric - then Obama is cynical to a degree that should make people think twice about his motives and intentions.

Peace.

I love it. Been saying the same myself for some years. You just said it far, far better…

It’s about, -us- yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s all about US.

WE will win…

Gay Cocaine Sex In A Limo, find your comment so tabloid.  Just dying to read more.  You missed the pedophile diaper wearing hokey pokey main part of the story though.

Hillary doesn’t have a clear message because all she really believes in is winning.

Amen.  This is what i think is most often missing from discussions about Sen Obama; it is also what he should be stressing more than he does…i mean saying overtly and repeatedly.

I don’t put my hope in Sen Obama’s ability to change the world.  My hope is that if he wins, his call will be answered by (particularly) two generations that have been mostly cynical and non-participatory.

Excellent post, I,Q.

^ “the people” are listening.

i’m glad that Dionne draws attention to an important detail which i feel gets left out of the mainstream assessments. They are very busy trying to dissect what is going on in terms of race or sex or social class, but for my money, Obama succeeds most by continuing to be the Obama he was “on day one.”

It is a turn off to many people to witness the shape-shifting contortions performed by Team Hill. This is only compounded by what might as well be the overarching slogan of her campaign: “I know what’s best for you!”

i agree with TJ that Obama’s call to action is invigorating, and if you actually listen to it and act on it, it has the added benefit of potentially working. The government is not a tube-sock puppet on corporate America’s fist unless we continue to let it be. We are the United States, goddamnit! And where were we when we let go of our pride? We did not gather together and protest loudly or long enough to bring an end to the idiot’s reign. We stayed home and bitched to our liberal friends about what a fascist he is. We waxed eloquently in blog postings about how hopeless it is to go up against Big Brother and his corporate dominatrix.

Regardless of who becomes the next president, the meaning of the message should not be discarded. Beneath the candy coated veneer of hope and togetherness, Obama is calling us out. Put our money where our collective mouth is. i can already see the refutations mount on the tips of cynics’ fingers aching to destroy this post as naively optimistic and to detail how sorrowfully disappointed we’ll all be when Obama becomes president.  But if you really think hard about it, Obama is right, and if you do nothing to change the sh!t you constantly bitch about, you should expect nothing to change.

“We are who we’ve been waiting for.”

Not to mention that in the “War on Undocumented Aliens” for which i have heard no plan of action, only xenophobic rhetoric and conflation with the war on terror (oh and the ridiculous wall which i suppose we will catapult them back across once it’s completed—but still no actual plan to find them first), issuing Driver Licenses would document these folks so one could actually find them once they figure out what to do with them and how to finance such an undertaking.

Regarding Patrick Walker’s opening lines, i don’t find it particularly insightful to state the obvious.

HillAry

What an odd combination in these comments..

First you start out with some reasonable insight about the state of the media, and the trash that we get from it. Not much of any sort of decent investigative journalism left. I agree, at least from the MSM, and just as much from some of the AM. Bullshit stuff that nobody cares about. Then you say this…

“…now there’s this whole Larry Craig Gay-Cocaine-Sex-In-A-Limo allegation on the Obama side…..Edwards was a fool to drop out when he did I think.”

So, tell me, do you really indulge in entertaining yourself with the gay-cocaine-sex-in-a-limo allegation stuff?  Because if so, then that pretty much negates any intelligent insight that you displayed at the beginning.

I mean, is that from the tabloids? (I don’t know, since I don’t read the tabloids, and I’ve not heard anything about these particular allegations…just the Larry Craig men’s room episode). Still, the other stuff about Obama sounds totally ridiculous, and I wouldn’t even believe that about Hillary, or any other candidate.
But if you believe that the smear machine would do this, why do you think they wouldn’t do it to John Edwards? Oh…he’s white. I forgot. Didn’t seem to stop the repug scum from Swiftboating his running mate 4 years ago though.
OK, get back to your tabloids, that appears to be where your info comes from.

Hillary should have remembered Goldwater’s slogan - “A choice, not an echo” and left her husband at home.

No great mystery here.  It’s just Clinton fatigue.  16 years is a long time and the campaign is way too long.  In England the national election campaigns last six weeks.  If it takes you longer than six weeks to say where you stand you’re not qualified.
Also everyone gets to vote not just people in the provinces.

EJ gets right to the heart of the matters here. I always like it when journalists cut to the chase. And, here it is:

•  “Her larger problem, which she must solve if she is to best Obama in the March 4 primaries, is reflected in her struggle to find a message, a purpose and a voice suited to the disoriented mood in American politics bred by the frustration of the later Bush years.”

Hillary has no message per se. Or, as EJ points out, it’s all over the map, and there’s nothing to connect the dots that are the ‘details’. That’s not to say that the ‘details’ are not important, because of course they are. Positions for any candidates, as well as their policies and PLANS for implementing those plans, are the guts of what make the bureaucratic machine operate, and we all depend the semi-efficiency of that, whether we consciously consider it or not. And, Hillary IS strong on those details, (somebody has to be) which is presumably what the media and her campaign reference when they talk about her ‘experience’. The thing is, the mood of the American public these days is focused LESS on ‘how’ the changes will be accomplished, (i.e. the paperwork) and more concerned with the larger picture..what is it gonna look like, and how will it work when the renovation is complete.

Obama apparently picked up on this distinction, and I picked up on the fact that HE had, when I was watching that interview that 60 minutes had with both of them. In response to a question on this, Obama said that when he was first campaigning at local spots, town hall meetings, etc, etc, a common complaint from the people was they he was too ‘professoritorial’, providing far more ‘detail’ than they really cared about. So, he has obviously made adjustments along the way.

He DOES have those details available, on just about any position or policy, for anybody who actually wants to know. It’s all there on his campaign website. And, he DOES address current and on-going issues that people also care about, in his speeches, and in the debates.

Hillary however, provides these details, and get’s stuck on things that she probably doesn’t get across to the public the way she might actually intend, or maybe she misreads the overall public mentality. (actually, that’s her big stumbling block). The thing with the Driver’s License is an example. I was surprised myself, at the public reaction to that, and even more that it could be such a polarizing detail.

On that single issue, I didn’t think it was a big deal for illegal immigrants to have Driver’s Licenses, based on the whole purpose of a driver’s license to begin with. It’s like any other license. It’s bureaucratic proof that one can legally operate a vehicle, and binds the person to the requirements of knowing the rules and the laws involved. Yes, it also servers as a form of State/bureaucratically issued identification, but so what? All it stipulates is that the holder is legally known as whatever his/her name is, and is licensed to operate a specific vehicle type. It DOES NOT provide proof of US citizenship, and cannot be used as a stand-alone form of documentation to prove that. It does NOT operate in lieu of a voter registration document, and it doesn’t guarantee access to state or federal resources. So I really don’t get what the big deal is, about providing these licenses, and popping those people into a database like all the rest of us have to be in, if we want to legally operate vehicles.

That said, it seems ironic, or maybe paradoxical that it would be THAT single position from Hillary, that could bring her down in terms of her candidacy. I can think of a whole lot of reasons why I don’t want her as president, but that’s not one of them. 

Meantime, EJ is right about her lacking a message to connect her details. She needs a thesis. She doesn’t have one. The former professor (Obama) obviously does.

“Wisdom for office doesn’t come from following the herd”. Spot on. And arrogance coupled with contempt for the ordinary citizen is a pro-vote killer.

What happened to Hillary began way back before her vote for one of America’s most heinous act named “cakewalking into Iraq”. Standing by a liar both in a personal and legal sense just not to detract from her quest to be President.

To add to Mike M-C’s condemnation of the immorality of the war one needs to consider Hillary’s own immoraility

are more apt to attend caucuses - according to the
Clintons.  So, why did they attempt to shut down caucus sites at Nevada casinos. Casino employees are upscalers?  Don’t think so.  Let’s hear the Clinton ‘story’ for this glaring contradiction - and while they’re at it, a few others.

All Things Considered

Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons’ connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Reports from Clinton’s campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.

It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.

“As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over,” he said. “This is the mother’s milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently.”

Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price.

According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker’s unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one — to do a test-run mailing.

But most intriguing of all was the renter of the Clinton list: a list brokerage company that is a subsidiary of one of the data-collection industry titans, Info U.S.A.

Info U.S.A.‘s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta’s empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.

Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons, and gave $1 million for the 2000 Millennium Celebration, a New Year’s Party thrown by the Clintons.

Last fall, ABC News reported that the library rented out a portion of its donor list to a list broker — the same one that rented Hillary Clinton’s campaign lists.

Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules.

After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It’s one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock.

Kevin Starke is a stock analyst in Connecticut who follows Gupta’s company.

“If it were me, and I had hired Bill Clinton to the tune of $3 million, I think I would try to make a fairly distinct case for why that was money well spent, and I’m not entirely clear on why he hasn’t done so,” Starke said.

The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.

There are plenty of other allegations in the suit about homes, cars, and a yacht for Gupta. A Delaware chancery court judge dismissed some of the allegations involving the Clintons. But the case is still proceeding.

“It’s not a company that’s threatened with bankruptcy or anything like that. It needs probably to be run with more of a view toward generating value for all shareholders, and not just the main shareholder,” Starke said.

Info U.S.A. did not respond to interview requests this week.

The Clinton campaign said Wednesday that the lists were rented out by her 2006 Senate campaign committee — and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.

That would mean the rental fees went unpaid for at least 11 months. Starke, the analyst, cites Info U.S.A. data showing that on average, it settles accounts within 64 days.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566